Appendix talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰago
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Seems to have been reconstructed on the basis of a single branch (Indo-Iranian). Slavic *bagu (*bogъ) is usually considered an Iranian borrowing in the literature. Furthermore it contains phoneme */a/ which is of disputed status in the reconstruction of PIE segments. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- a and o merge in Balto-Slavic, so from the evidence of Slavic alone, *bʰogo- is equally valid. And there's nothing against replacing *bʰ with *b or *g with *gʰ either. So this reconstruction isn't really well founded enough to include it. —CodeCat 16:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- They would lengthen by Winter's law which would yield Common Slavic **bagъ. And how you account for aspiration in Sanskrit bh? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's always possible it's not a cognate. The meaning is different enough. —CodeCat 19:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Bahuvrihi adjectives *ubogъ and *nebogъ "poor, miserable" and *bogatъ "rich" prove that *bogъ was originally also an adjective, and that it meant meaning something along "earthly wealth/well-being; fortune" and then "dispenser of wealth/fortune" and then "god". Exactly same thing happened in Iranian which according to some is too much of a coincidence to happen in parallel (hence the borrowing theory, postulated even before WL was discovered which on a more formal level implies the same).
- However, I've found out that according to Beekes PIE *bʰ(e)h₂g- (LIV: bʰag-) would be the source of ἔφαγον (éphagon, “to eat, devour”) as well, but how the meanings match to II and Slavic escapes me. At any case, PIE noun *bʰago(s) "god, deity" seems worthy of deletion, because that meaning arose independently in two different subbranches. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's always possible it's not a cognate. The meaning is different enough. —CodeCat 19:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- They would lengthen by Winter's law which would yield Common Slavic **bagъ. And how you account for aspiration in Sanskrit bh? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
{{look}}
- Delete. Too uncertain for us. We should avoid giving the impression that certain etymological connections have widespread consensus among historical linguists if they don't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete: Potential but debatable connections of this type may be better discussed on the pages for the involved Proto-Slavic, Proto-Indo-Iranian and Greek words. --Tropylium (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. bd2412 T 16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)